Jump to content

LarryRow

Members
  • Posts

    1,743
  • Joined

Reputation

10 Good
  1. Someone mentioned that it's impossible to get artifact gear as a free player, but theoretically with escrow unlocks on the GTN you could eventually get there.
  2. They should seriously consider this. The money they lose from preferred players not buying warzone passes (let's face it, most use the GTN anyway) will be made up for by keeping subs happy with fresh warzone queues, so they don't drop to preferred. The counter argument is that subs will switch to preferred exactly because they can get warzones for free, but there are many other benefits to subbing that current sub won't want to lose.
  3. This is a fascinating discussion because there are so many opinions about how to do this. You are focusing on what will encourage players to sub, which is hardly cut and dry. It's a delicate balance between annoying them just enough without annoying them too much. However, there is a completely different way to think of free players: they (we: I go back to free to play tonight I think) are content for subscribers. We populate the world to make the game feel not empty, we make queues pop faster, we contribute to the game's economy, etc. Restrictions which impact our ability to improve the experience for subscribers may be doing more harm than good. I've identified the most punitive of these as: 1. Restrictions on trade 2. Respec cost (since being able to queue dual role reduces queues significantly) Obviously being able to queue for warzones is also on this list, but it's not as restrictive since you can buy passes.
  4. So to summarize, I agree with the OP that credit cap spam (not the credit cap itself) could be toned down. A F2P chat channel would be a great idea I disagree that being able to mail credits around is absolutely necessary, since credits can be earned without too much pain. As long as you can mail items one message at a time and mail stacks of items, it's fine. I also think: F2P should be able to post on the forums in some capacity Respec cost should be a reasonable flat rate (e.g., $10k at level 55) Warzone limitations should be eased to improve queue times for subs Someone was saying that earning xp is too slow as F2P but I disagree with this also. With all the activities to do and daily quests you can pick up, side quests, space missions, etc. xp generation is, if anything, too fast for subs. That makes it about right for F2P so you don't overlevel the content. Heck, they even give you those xp boosts as mission rewards and you can buy more if you want.
  5. Thanks for outing yourself as a subbing elitist who can't fathom that things might not be the way they assume. "I pay money, and can't handle the idea that people who don't pay might enjoy themselves, so keep their restrictions high even if it's bad for the game." Please exit the thread.
  6. Well you are obviously biased, and there are plenty of terrible subs in the queue too. But the point, which you continually miss, is that by lifting some restrictions free players would have more incentive to play the game and acquire skills more quickly, thus improving the experience for subs.
  7. Bad analogy is bad. For starters, when I drive a car on the freeway, it doesn't improve the experience for the other drivers.
  8. Then why does it seem like most of the money is being spent by subs on cosmetics and hypercrates and stuff? They are satisfied enough to sub, but they still spend money. Why? Because they are all about the game. F2P restrictions prevent free players from getting to that same level of commitment, so they don't spend as much. I am "doing what I'm doing" and that is making queue times longer for subs because I run around leveling in dps spec while I wait for queue to pop.
  9. That's exactly what is expected. And that's why Bioware does not necessarily need F2p players' subscription. Way to truncate my words and miss my point. I said subs spend the most because they are most invested in the game. In other words, lower certain F2P restrictions so F2P can become more invested in the game and they will spend more money too.
  10. I think a lot of posters here are basically getting it: free and preferred players do a lot of things that benefit subscribers. They queue for flashpoints and warzones, and they spend money in the cash shop that can be used on development. But F2P restrictions are getting in the way. Weekly limits on content lengthen queue times and severely inhibit the learning curve of free players, so when you do get them in your group they are less effective. And other general restrictions like artifact gear and respec cost inhibit free players getting invested in the game, which in turn decreases how much they spend in the cartel market. We all know subs spend the most on the market and it's because they are the most invested in the game. By the way it's funny to see the various opinions on what restrictions are most annoying. Rested xp doesn't bother me at all, but respec cost is such a frustrating thing!
  11. I recently returned as preferred status and have just been leveling my lowbie, so the credit sound spam didn't bother me. I haven't tried mailing items. Can't you send multiple mails with 1 item each? You can still send stacks, right? What is driving me NUTS is having to pay to respec. Doesn't BW realize it severely limits our ability to queue for multiple roles for Flashpoints, thus making pops take longer for subs? And you know, I don't even mind the fee so much as the fact that it increases exponentially. A flat fee based on your character level would be perfectly fine. But don't let me respec for 1k credits without telling me it will be 15k credits to spec back. I also think the warzone limit should be rethought, since that also provides content for subs. Maybe chop the rewards in half after the first five warzones or something? I dunno, maybe that's not as important since there are passes you can buy. (Ops I can understand, and you can still do unlimited FPs, just not roll on the last item) If you're wondering how I'm typing this, I found a refer-a-friend link that granted me a week's subscription. I used the opportunity to consolidate credits among my toons, delete the ones I didn't want, and buy a couple of unlocks, like the account-wide artifact gear unlock. Also, the refer-a-friend gave each of my toons a bind-on-pickup unlock for an inventory slot, crew skill, and a couple cosmetics (titles and unify colors I think).
  12. Some of your quotes are re-ordered because it made more sense to address them in that order. As I recall, the endboss on hard mode flashpoints dropped a tionese token based on what the flashpoint was (e.g., gloves from Taral V) and this piece had a set bonus. Do you have a source to the contrary? Craftable 63's is what enabled people to get BiS raid gear without raiding. The set bonus had nothing to do with that. You haven't proven anything. You've just shown that the system is "back" to the way you think it should be. I could just as easily say that making the bonuses more obtainable was the design intent that fixed the original oversight (after all, it was left like that for a much longer time). I always find kids who claim to have "proven" anything on an internet forum to be quite amusing. You need to work on your reading comprehension and debating skills. I clearly said above that I am doing fine obtaining the set bonuses, though I still think the design decision was stupid. With reading skills like that, it's no wonder you claim false proofs and reject valid arguments out of hand. In the end, the set bonuses are unnecessary but they also don't do any harm if they are widely available. So it's a matter of opinion. The OP expressed his frustration and I echoed it. I thought it was really asinine that I had to temporarily give up my set bonuses as part of a progression that earns them back. I suppose I should have expected a wave of people to rush in and stand up for every last bit of game mechanics that allows them to claim superiority over other gamers. The fault was mine for having too much faith in the community. But you have taught me not to make that mistake again.
  13. You don't. You also don't need level 66 or level 69 gear, which you can get from HM FPs, if you aren't raiding, since the story modes are easily done in full 63s. So I'm confused. Is your point that we should be able to get set bonuses from flashpoints? Or that we shouldn't get 66/69 gear from flashpoints?
  14. Actually I said it many times, but your elitist hat must cover your eyes. Bioware took something away that we used to have, instead of providing a new step in the progression. It was a stupid and needless design decision on their part, which the OP decided to point out. But hold on, here come all the "hardcore raiders" (by the way, I do raid, and have bonuses on a couple of toons) to defend any move by bioware that creates a separation between the haves and the have-nots. Anything they can point to and say, "Look I have this and you don't, so I am good and you are bad," is sacred and must be staunchly protected. Your cute little reversal of my question was a sad attempt to hide this pathetic attitude..... edit: .....although here is an example of you being pretty brazen about it. Fortunately, the odds of you being on my server are relatively slim.
  15. Then you need to work on your reading comprehension. I critiqued his comment (not him) and offered some friendly advice. The rest of your comment fails, not surprisingly, to address what exactly the problem was with set bonuses on widely available gear (probably because there was no problem). Bioware has taken something away from the players and I have to wonder of the motivation of the people who approve. Right now my working theory is that they (you?) like having something other players don't. They get their feelings of superiority from a video game, which is pathetic. Until there is an explanation provided for how set bonuses on easily obtained gear damages the game or the players who are raiding current hard modes, I have no choice but to stick with this theory.
×
×
  • Create New...